I firmly agree simply because we cannot be 'objective'. We are a part of the human experiment and so all that we sense, determine, believe, observe, is the result of our individual and shared perceptions. Granted, there may be an 'objective' reality and even an 'objective' morality but we can never fully determine that to be the case since we cannot step outside of our perception, as persons or as people.
However, I added to this thought, as can be seen above, in which I came upon the idea that there could be an 'objective' morality if we consider morality to be a question of 'harmful vs. non-harmful'. That which is harmful is immoral. That which is non-harmful(or beneficial) is moral.
If we place this standard then we now have an method to 'weigh' the morality of actions 'objectively'.
If the action is necessarily harmful to unconsenting persons, it can be seen as 'objectively' immoral regardless of the relative 'morality' perceived by the actor. If it is not necessarily harmful(even if it may be perceived as 'harmful' but without any evidence to that perception), then it is not objectively immoral and is subject to the perceptions of those judging it one way or another.
RE: Morality: Only Subjective Or Objective?